9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to take notice for the respondents. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader has filed the affidavits of Sri N. B. Patil, Circle Inspector of Police, Shiggaon Circle, Shiggaon, and Sri P.S. Gachinagatti, Sub-Inspector of Savanur Police Station, Savanur, who are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. In both the affidavits, the averments made in the petition as to the arrest have been denied. 4. Sri Kashinath Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised several contentions. However, he gave up all his contentions except the one that even though Sri Hardeep Singh was arrested in the morning of 27-9-1990, he was produced before the Court only on 29-9-1990, long after the expiry of 24 hours. 5. In support of his contention that Sri Hardeep Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the offences punishable under Ss. 379, 411, 279, 338 read with Ss. 86 and 87, I.P.C. and 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act. Section 379, I.P.C. is a cognizable offence for which the Police Officer can arrest without a warrant. Section 46 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides as to how arrest can be made. It reads : 46. Arrest how made. - (1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. 2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. 3) Nothing in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and all other formalities were required to be completed. It was done only on 28-9-1990 and he was arrested on that date. It is not possible to accept this contention in the light of the provisions contained in Section 46 read with Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. 10. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that in the event the fact of arrest shown as 28-9-1990 is not accepted, the explanation offered for the delay in the counter-affidavit and the unconditional apology tendered by respondents 1 and 2 in the memo filed by him today may be accepted. 11. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that respondents 1 and 2 were immediately required to go to Dharwad in connection with communal rioting and they could return to Savanur only on 28-9-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
